# UNION OF INDIA v. Y.S. SADHU, EX-INSPECTOR

- **Citation:** [2008] 13 S.C.R. 784
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2008-09-22
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No.5771 of 2008
- **Bench:** Dr. Arijit Pasayat, Dr. Mukundakam Sharma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/union-of-india-v-y-s-sadhu-ex-inspector-23642
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Labour law: Disciplinary proceedings - Non-furnishing
c of enquiry report to delinquent employee - Order of dismissal
- Duty of courts/tribunal to interfere - Held: When Court finds
that there was violation of rules of natural justice, it should set
aside order of dismissal - However there would not be reinstatement - Proceedings would continue and left to be deD cided by authority concerned, based on fresh enquiry.
The writ petitioner-respondent was dismissed from
service, on the basis of report submitted by enquiry officer, recording establishment of charges. The High Court
directed reinstatement without payment of back wages.
E Hence the present appeal.
Respondent contended that as the requisite principles of natural justice were not followed, High Court had
passed the orders in his favour.
F
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. In all cases where the enquiry officer's report is not furnished to the delinquent employee in the
disciplinary proceedings, the Courts and Tribunals
should cause the copy of the report to be furnished to
G the aggrieved employee if he has not already secured it
before coming to the Court/Tribunal and give the employee
an opportunity to show how his or her case was prejudiced because of non-supply of the report. If the non-supply of the report would have made no difference to the
H
784
UNION OF INDIA v. Y.S. SADHU,
785
EX-INSPECTOR
ultimate findings and the punishment given, the Court/ A
Tribunal should not interfere with the order of punishment.
The Court/Tribunal should not mechanically set aside the
order of punishment on the ground that the report was
not furnished as is regrettably being done at present. The
courts should avoid resorting to short cuts. Since it is the B
Courts/Tribunals which will apply their judicial mind to the
question and give their reasons for setting aside or not
setting aside the order of punishment, (and not any internal appellate or revisional authority), there would be neither a breach of the principles of natural justice nor a de- c
nial of the reasonable opportunity. If the Court/Tribunal
finds that the furnishing of the report would have made a
difference to the result, it should set aside the order of
punishment. Where after following the above procedure,
the Court/Tribunal sets aside the order of punishment, the 0
proper relief that should be granted is to direct re-instatement of the employee with liberty to the authority/management to proceed with the inquiry, by placing the employee under suspension and continuing the inquiry from
the stage of furnishing him with the report. The question
whether the employee would be entitled to the back wages E
and other benefits from the date of his dismissal to the
date of his re-instatement if ultimately ordered, should invariably be left to be decided by the authority concerned
according to law, after the culmination of the proceedings
and depending on the final outcome. If the employee sueF
ceeds in the fresh inquiry and is directed to be re-instated,
the authority should be at liberty to decide according to
law how it will treat the period from the date of dismissal
till the re-instatement and to what benefits, if any and the
extent of the benefits, he will be entitled. The re-instateG
ment made as a result of the setting aside the inquiry for
failure to furnish the report, should be treated as a re-instatement for the purpose of holding the fresh inquiry from
the stage of furnishing the report and no more, where such
fresh inquiry is held. [Para 7] [P 788 C-H] [785-A-D]
H
786
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 13 S.C.R.
A
Hiran Mayee Bhattacharyya v. Secretary, S. M. School
for Girls aand Ors. (2002) 10 SCC 293; UP State Spinning
Co. Ltd. v. R.S. Pandey and Anr. (2005) 8 SCC 264 - relied
on.
2. There shall not be any reinstatement but the proB ceedings shall continue from the stage where it stood
before the alleged vulnerability surfaced. [Para 8] [789-H]
3. If any representation is made by respondent for
varying

## Text

A
B
[2008] 13 S.C.R. 784
UNION OF INDIA
v.
Y.S. SADHU, EX-INSPECTOR
(Civil Appeal No.5771 of 2008)
SEPTEMBER 22, 2008
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ.]
Labour law: Disciplinary proceedings - Non-furnishing
c of enquiry report to delinquent employee - Order of dismissal
- Duty of courts/tribunal to interfere - Held: When Court finds
that there was violation of rules of natural justice, it should set
aside order of dismissal - However there would not be reinstatement - Proceedings would continue and left to be deD cided by authority concerned, based on fresh enquiry.
The writ petitioner-respondent was dismissed from
service, on the basis of report submitted by enquiry officer, recording establishment of charges. The High Court
directed reinstatement without payment of back wages.
E Hence the present appeal.
Respondent contended that as the requisite principles of natural justice were not followed, High Court had
passed the orders in his favour.
F
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. In all cases where the enquiry officer's report is not furnished to the delinquent employee in the
disciplinary proceedings, the Courts and Tribunals
should cause the copy of the report to be furnished to
G the aggrieved employee if he has not already secured it
before coming to the Court/Tribunal and give the employee
an opportunity to show how his or her case was prejudiced because of non-supply of the report. If the non-supply of the report would have made no difference to the
H
784
UNION OF INDIA v. Y.S. SADHU,
785
EX-INSPECTOR
ultimate findings and the punishment given, the Court/ A
Tribunal should not interfere with the order of punishment.
The Court/Tribunal should not mechanically set aside the
order of punishment on the ground that the report was
not furnished as is regrettably being done at present. The
courts should avoid resorting to short cuts. Since it is the B
Courts/Tribunals which will apply their judicial mind to the
question and give their reasons for setting aside or not
setting aside the order of punishment, (and not any internal appellate or revisional authority), there would be neither a breach of the principles of natural justice nor a de- c
nial of the reasonable opportunity. If the Court/Tribunal
finds that the furnishing of the report would have made a
difference to the result, it should set aside the order of
punishment. Where after following the above procedure,
the Court/Tribunal sets aside the order of punishment, the 0
proper relief that should be granted is to direct re-instatement of the employee with liberty to the authority/management to proceed with the inquiry, by placing the employee under suspension and continuing the inquiry from
the stage of furnishing him with the report. The question
whether the employee would be entitled to the back wages E
and other benefits from the date of his dismissal to the
date of his re-instatement if ultimately ordered, should invariably be left to be decided by the authority concerned
according to law, after the culmination of the proceedings
and depending on the final outcome. If the employee sueF
ceeds in the fresh inquiry and is directed to be re-instated,
the authority should be at liberty to decide according to
law how it will treat the period from the date of dismissal
till the re-instatement and to what benefits, if any and the
extent of the benefits, he will be entitled. The re-instateG
ment made as a result of the setting aside the inquiry for
failure to furnish the report, should be treated as a re-instatement for the purpose of holding the fresh inquiry from
the stage of furnishing the report and no more, where such
fresh inquiry is held. [Para 7] [P 788 C-H] [785-A-D]
H
786
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 13 S.C.R.
A
Hiran Mayee Bhattacharyya v. Secretary, S. M. School
for Girls aand Ors. (2002) 10 SCC 293; UP State Spinning
Co. Ltd. v. R.S. Pandey and Anr. (2005) 8 SCC 264 - relied
on.
2. There shall not be any reinstatement but the proB ceedings shall continue from the stage where it stood
before the alleged vulnerability surfaced. [Para 8] [789-H]
3. If any representation is made by respondent for
varying the order of termination to one of compulsory rec tirement to the concerned authorities, the same to be considered in its proper perspective. [Para 9] [790-B]
D
Case Law Reference
(2002) 10 sec 293
relied on
(2005) 8 sec 264
relied on
Para 6
Para 7
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5771
of 2008
From the final Judgment and Order dated 8.12.2006 of
E the Gauhati High Court in Writ Appeal No. 45 of 2004
F
Binu Tamta and Sushma Suri for the Appellant.
Khwairakpam Nabin Singh for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.
2. Leave granted.
3. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division
G Bench of the Gauhati High Court dismissing the writ appeal filed
by the appellants.
4. Challenge in the writ appeal was to the judgment and
order dated 04.12.2003 passed by learned Single Judge diH recting re-instatement of the writ petitioner (respondent herein)
UNION OF INDIA v. Y.S. SADHU,
787
EX-INSPECTOR [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
in service without payment of back wages. The reasons for which
A
learned single Judge interfered with the order of dismissal from
service was that the witnesses examined earlier were not produced for cross examination. Punishment was awarded by the
Disciplinary Authority by taking into account the report submitted by the enquiry officer recording establishment of charges. 8
The Division Bench concurred with the findings of the learned
Single Judge.
5. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the view taken by learned Single Judge and
the Division Bench is contrary to w)lat has been stated by this c
Court in several cases. Learned counsel for the respondent, on
the other hand, submitted that because the requisite principles
of natural justice were not followed, learned single Judge and
the Division Bench had passed the orders in favour of the respondent-writ petitioner.
6. In Hiran Mayee Bhattacharyya Vs. Secretary, S.M.
School for Girls and Ors. (2002 (10) SCC 293) this Court has
observed as follows :
D
"We, therefore, direct the disciplinary authority to furnish a
copy of the enquiry report to the appellant and then permit
E
her to submit her representation/explanation to the same
and pass final orders thereafter. However, this will not lead
to reinstatement or to back wages inasmuch as this Court
had decided in the case of Managing Director, ECIL,,
Hyderabad Vs. B. Karunakar (1993 (4) SCC 737) that
F
there need be no reinstatement nor back wages need be
paid when the Court directs that the principles of natural
justice should be followed. We, therefore, remit the matter
to the disciplinary authority, being Secretary, Shibarampur
Madhyamik High School for Girls, Shibarampur, Calcutta G
700061 for the aforesaid purposes. The termination order
already passed will remain, but subject to the result of the
fresh consideration as directed above".
7. Similarly, in UP State Spinning Co. Ltd. Vs. R.S.
Pant!"Jy and Anr (2005 (8) sec 264), it was noted as follows:
H
788
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 13 S.C.R.
A
"The residual question is what would the appropriate
direction in such a case. Stand of the employer is that it
could have justified the order of termination by adducing
any evidence even if it was held that there was some
defect in the departmental proceedings. The solution is
B
found in what was stated by this Court in Managing
Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar, [1993] 4 SCC 737. In
paragraph 31, it was observed as follows:
c
D
E
F
G
H
"In all cases where the enquiry officer's report is not
furnished to the delinquent employee in the disciplinary
proceedings, the Courts and Tribunals should cause the
copy of the report to be furnished to the aggrieved
employee if he has not already secured it before coming
to the Court!Tribunal and give the employee an opportunity
to show how his or her case was prejudiced because of
non-supply of the report. If the non-supply of the report
would have made no difference to the ultimate findings
and the punishment given, the Court!Tribunal should not
interfere with the order of punishment. The Court!Tribunal
should not mechanically set aside the order of punishment
on the ground that the report was not furnished as is
regrettably being done at present. The courts should avoid
resorting to short cuts. Since it is the Courts/Tribunals
which will apply their judicial mind to the question and give
their reasons for setting aside or not setting aside the
order of punishment, (and not any internal appellate or
revisional authority), there would be neither a breach of
the principles of natural justice nor a denial of the
reasonable opportunity. It is only if the Court!Tribunal finds
that the furnishing of the report would have made a
difference to the result in the case that it should set aside
the order of punishment. Where after following the above
procedure, the Court/Tribunal sets aside the order of
punishment, the proper relief that should be granted is to
direct re-instatement of the employee with liberty to the
authority/management to proceed with the inquiry, by
)·
UNION OF INDIA v. Y.S. SADHU,
789
EX-INSPECTOR [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
placing the employee under suspension and continuing
A
the inquiry from the stage of furnishing him with the report.
The question whether the employee would be entitled to
the back wages and other·benefits from the date of his
dismissal to the date of his re-instatement if ultimately
ordered, should invariably be left to be decided by the
B
. authority concerned according to law, after the culmination
of the proceedings and depending on the final outcome.
If the employee succeeds in the tres~ inquiry and is
directed to be re-instated, the authority should be at liberty
to decide according to law how it will treat the period from c
the date of dismissal till the re-instatement and to what
benefits, if any and the extent of the benefits, he will be
entitled. The re-instatement made as a result of the setting
aside the inquiry for failure to furnish the report, should be
treated as a re-instatement for the purpose of holding the 0
fresh inquiry from the stage of furnishing the report and no
more, where such fresh inquiry is held. That will also be
the correct position in law."
In view of above, we set aside the order of learned Single
Judge as affirmed by the Division Bench by the impugned
E
judgment and direct that within a period of four months,
the enquiry shall be completed by starting from the stage
of service of show cause notice and consideration of the
reply, if any, filed in accordance with the standing orders
holding the field. The respondent No. 1 shall be re-instated
F
to service but without any back wages and other service
benefits and his re-instatement shall be solely for the
purpose of completing the departmental proceedings. His
entitlements, if any, would be adjudicated by the authorities
depending upon the result of the disciplinary proceedings." G
8. Keeping in view the aforesaid position of law indicated
in the aforesaid decisions, we are of the view that the course
adopted in the two cases above, is to be followed. There shall
not be any reinstatement but the proceedings shall continue from
the stage where it stood before the alleged vulnerability surfaced.
H
790
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 13 S.C.R.
A
9. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner-respondent submitted that he has already retired and, therefore, he is not interested in pursuing the remedy. He may be given the chance of
moving the authorities for varying the order of termination to
one of compulsory retirement. If any representation in this re8
gard is made to the concerned authority, the same shall be considered in its proper perspective. We express no opinion in
that regard.
10. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
C D.G.
Appeal Partly allowed.
)I'
..,